No, I do not subscribe to the opinion that guns, necessrily, lower violent crime rate. I also do not subscribe to the opinion that guns, necessarily, cause suicides even though the numbers could indicate either.

Both violent crime and suicide are complicated issues. So, is gun ownership and use. My point is that the statstics are bantered about here (in the US), on both sides to make their point. During that argument, I think we sometimes loose track of some of the real reasons that, largely, young men are dying.

Your earlier characterization of a gun owner needing to brandish ever increasing weaponry may be true for some gun owners here. But, it is not the norm. There is a culture around guns that is fostered in rural areas of this country that is not based in violence as you portray. In fact, some of the least violent areas have very high gun ownership, and, more importantly, high gun use (sporting and hunting).

Mac

Regardless of Sen. Feinstein's place in the political spectrum, she is well known for her position on gun control in these parts.

I found it interesting that you jumped immediately into defending her as not really that liberal...only maybe on gun control. Folks in these parts may be more "liberal" than you credit. It is, often, more an attitude of "don't tell ME what to do". I like to use the following illustration...

My cow town has a coffee shop run by a couple of openly (very) gay guys. The shop is near my house. Pickup trucks with guns in racks fill the parking spaces as the local "rednecks" grab some coffee on the way out of town. They don't give a sh*t about their lifestyle.

I believe that the people that subscribe to the liberal politics of the coastal cities have a limited understanding of the folks that live in other parts of the country. Gun control cannot be shoved down our throats by "outsiders". For this reason, I do not believe a national gun control bill with any substance will be passed.

I have mentioned this before. Why is the strategy by gun control advocates not aimed (sorry) at individual states? Even pro-gun Colo does not allow sales at gun shows without background checks and a new proposal to do the same with private sales has a good chance of passing. All the feds would need to do is stop the sale of guns across state lines. Defining gun control as a state's issue might have more traction.

CB--I understand, and appreciate your effective communication, that guns are different symbols in urban and rural areas. I agree that we need to craft solutions that are acceptable to both, or we face another issue like abortion that will divide us needlessly.

What I was trying to get you to see is that politicians--both liberal and conservative--react emotionally to symbolic events. I have known the entire time I've been involved in politics and governance that politicians, of both stripes, will propose and pass measures that will not meet Constitutional tests. They will do it to please constituencies, but also to respond to their own emotions. Diane Feinstein was a protege of George Moscone, who was murdered by a conservative Republican cop who snuck into City hall. She was one of the first on the scene--so her emotional connection to gun violence is very different than that of a rural hunter. Doesn't make either the sole owner of rectitude, simply an effort to try to get you to see what the world looks like in another pair of shoes.

With that said, the comments by LaPierre bordered on criminality. I would cheer if a meteorite fell on his head today. He has promised to fight background checks, and he has successfully fought all record keeping. But what is known, despite his efforts, shows that background checks in California alone stop about a dozen criminals and mentally ill from buying guns--every day!

Quote:

Every day for the past 22 years, California's background checks have stopped about a dozen felons, mentally ill people and others from buying guns.

When prospective gun buyers stride into California gun stores such as Ron Kennedy's Canyon Sports in Martinez, they must swipe their driver's licenses or state IDs. That sets off a review process that runs their names not only through the same FBI criminal database other states use but also almost 20 other sources, from mental health records to DMV data. It's a check more rigorous than any other state's.

California is also one of only two states -- Rhode Island is the other -- requiring such checks not only for purchases from licensed gun dealers, but also for all purchases at gun shows, or even if you're just buying a gun from a neighbor.

For those reasons, California's universal background check system is being held up by gun control advocates as a model for the rest of the country. Yet in the emotionally charged national debate that has ensued since December's massacre at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, whether implementing such a system nationwide would prevent similar tragedies and gun crimes remains a bitter point of contention.

Mac...I agree on the NRA. And, they have the power to fight the states attempts to enact the legislation you have suggested also. I understand that you recognize the differences in rural vs urban. But, I do not believe the Democrat leadership does. They are putting some of their party in a very awkward place, regardless of Sen Feinsteins personal experience.

I believe that the people that subscribe to the liberal politics of the coastal cities have a limited understanding of the folks that live in other parts of the country.

That is probably the greatest understatement I have ever seen on the internet. Almost all by itself it explains the incredible and incredibly far leftward bias of the vast majority of the "news" media.

CB--I largely agree. I think that you and steven bard have been pursuasive here in identifying the concern over military type weapons as more a symbol than an effective control. The daily killings in our cities generally involve hand guns, some, but not most, set up to fire rapidly. So for me, effective solutions involve recognizing legitimate gun owners, and registering their guns. The control point is over sales, of whatever type of weapon.

But I would bet on Obama, when the shouting is over. He is simply smarter than the troglydites, and right now they are the ones doing the resistance. Most American's--by a large margin--want something done. The challenge of politics is to make the political thing also the effective thing.

mac... I think if we see any new gun control measures, they will be, largely, symbolic. A nod at better background checks, increase in funding (very small as proposed) for mental health services and maybe formulation of a national data base. All good things. But, I do not see private sales of guns subject to background checks or magazine limitations making the cut.

mac... I think if we see any new gun control measures, they will be, largely, symbolic. A nod at better background checks, increase in funding (very small as proposed) for mental health services and maybe formulation of a national data base. All good things. But, I do not see private sales of guns subject to background checks or magazine limitations making the cut.

Private sales of guns in California are already restricted. The California plan is very restrictive but doesn't address my main concern. AGE. Above 30 should be a threshold for semi-auto weapons. Below that should be a "hunter safety" type course, for both mental and physical ability.

mac... I think if we see any new gun control measures, they will be, largely, symbolic. A nod at better background checks, increase in funding (very small as proposed) for mental health services and maybe formulation of a national data base. All good things. But, I do not see private sales of guns subject to background checks or magazine limitations making the cut.

Private sales of guns in California are already restricted. The California plan is very restrictive but doesn't address my main concern. AGE. Above 30 should be a threshold for semi-auto weapons. Below that should be a "hunter safety" type course, for both mental and physical ability.

Proposals in Colorado for the same. The largest abusers of gun rights are the young males. It is odd that you cannot hunt without a safety course, but you can carry a concealed weapon with no training. That makes no sense.

you can carry a concealed weapon with no training. That makes no sense.

That goes in WA, too, and that's scary whether it's young males, little old ladies, 40-something firemen, or military veterans whose only formal gun training was one target shooting class in boot camp or officers' training school. Probably the best-exectuted How-To book I've ever read (out of MANY hundreds) was on home defense with handguns, and the most powerful message it gave me was how much I still need to learn before I even think about routinely carrying a gun on my person. No surprise there, but it really highlights what an idiot anyone would have to be to "pack" without significant and specific training.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum